State v. Mills, 2014 Ohio 2188

Robert Mills was convicted in 2007 of aggravated robbery (with firearm specifications) and drug offenses; total concurrent prison term of six years.
At sentencing the court orally advised Mills about five years of postrelease control and that violations could result in additional prison time, but the journal entry only stated: “Post release control is part of this prison sentence for 5 years under R.C. 2967.28,” and omitted consequences for violations.
After completing his underlying sentence, Mills was later indicted for escape based on an alleged violation of postrelease control and pled guilty to attempted escape.
Mills moved to vacate his escape plea, dismiss the indictment, and terminate postrelease control on the ground the sentencing entry failed to lawfully impose postrelease control.
The trial court granted Mills’s motions; the State appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, holding the omission in the journal entry rendered the postrelease-control term void and therefore the APA lacked jurisdiction to impose postrelease control or support an escape conviction once Mills completed his sentence.

Issue	State's Argument	Mills's Argument	Held
Was postrelease control validly imposed despite journal-entry omission of violation consequences?	Oral advisement at sentencing plus journal entry stating 5 years under R.C. 2967.28 is sufficient.	Omission of consequences in the journal entry makes the postrelease-control term void.	Held for Mills: omission rendered the sentence void because consequences of violation were not incorporated in the entry.
Could Mills be prosecuted for escape based on the void postrelease-control term after he completed his underlying sentence?	Even if entry omitted details, oral notice sufficed so APA had jurisdiction; escape charge valid.	Without a valid postrelease-control term, APA lacked jurisdiction and escape charge cannot stand.	Held for Mills: once underlying sentence was served and entry was void, court could not correct the error and escape conviction could not be sustained.

State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (trial courts must notify at sentencing and incorporate postrelease control in the journal entry)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (postrelease-control notice must include details and consequences; omissions may be corrected nunc pro tunc before sentence completion)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (void postrelease-control sentences are reviewable at any time)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (sentencing errors cannot be corrected by resentencing after sentence completion)
State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103 (Fischer applies to collateral attacks that result in escape pleas)